4.  The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Malaga, Spain.
5.  The applicant's company was building houses on a plot bordering on parkland in the city of Espoo. On 19 October 2000 the city filed a criminal complaint requesting the police to investigate whether the applicant, or other persons, had committed an offence by cutting down trees on city grounds and removing them without authorisation.
6.  On 31 October 2000 the applicant was questioned by the police for the first time in that connection. On 5 July 2001, having questioned the applicant on three further occasions, as well as other suspects and witnesses, and having obtained written evidence, the police referred the investigation report to the public prosecutor.
7.  The applicant subsequently requested an additional pre-trial investigation. The prosecutor acceded to the request and referred the case back to the police on 14 November 2001. The report on that investigation was sent to the prosecutor on 13 March 2002.
8.  In August 2001 two more criminal complaints were filed and the applicant was questioned on suspicion of having made unauthorised alterations to a listed building situated on the construction site and having used the city grounds as a storage area for soil and building materials. The reports on these investigations were referred to the prosecutor on 19 and 20 June 2002, respectively.
9.  The applicant was provided with an opportunity to submit final statements to the investigation reports, which he did. The police referred the last two statements to the prosecutor on 22 August 2002.
10.  On 24 September 2002 the prosecutor brought charges against the applicant and three other defendants in the Espoo District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätt). He accused the applicant of damage to the environment, aggravated criminal damage, a building offence and criminal trespass. The city joined most of the charges. After having held preliminary hearings on 8 January 2003, the court held an oral hearing comprising ten sessions between 7 and 22 May 2003. In addition to written evidence the court received testimony from all defendants and nearly 30 witnesses. On 7 May 2003 the court also made an on-site inspection.
11.  On 18 June 2003 the court dismissed all the charges. Regarding the applicant, it stated, inter alia, that in cutting down the trees he had acted in good faith, relying on an agreement between the city and the owner of the building plot. According to the said agreement, the constructor was required to trim and tidy up the bordering parkland. The court further found that, in the particular circumstances of the case, the applicant had justifiably believed that no authorisation was needed to renovate the listed building and that he had not used the city grounds in an unlawful manner. In assessing the amount of costs and expenses awarded to defence counsel, the District Court noted that the case material had been extensive and the court's oral hearing had comprised ten long sessions.
12.  On 30 June 2003 the prosecutor requested an extension of the time-limit set for an appeal. Having regard to the extent of the case material and the prosecutor's annual leave, the District Court extended the time-limit to 15 September 2003.
13.  On that date, the prosecutor lodged his appeal with the Helsinki Court of Appeal (hovioikeus, hovrätten). On 14 November 2003 the letter of appeal was sent to the applicant for comments. On 3 December 2003 the applicant requested an extension of the time-limit set for his reply. The court acceded to the request and extended the time-limit to 30 January 2004. The applicant filed his reply on 22 January 2004.
14.  On 12 September 2005 the court held a preliminary hearing. On 14 November 2005 it made an on-site inspection. An oral hearing comprising four sessions was held between 17 and 24 January 2006. In addition to written evidence the court received testimony from all four defendants and 19 witnesses. On 18 May 2006 the court issued its judgment, where it deviated from the lower court's conclusion about the legality of the applicant's actions. It convicted him of damaging the environment and of a building offence. It sentenced him to 80 unit fines and ordered him to pay damages and legal expenses to the city and to reimburse witness fees to the State.
15.  On 23 November 2006 the Supreme Court (korkein oikeus, högsta domstolen) refused the applicant leave to appeal.